Burden of proof falls on the one making a positive claim, regardless of whether he said it before or after the person not making a positive claim. That's simply all there is to it; if you don't accept or understand this, then you need to educated on the matter.

It's somewhat similar to criminal trials in the United States. In such trials, the burden of proof relies entirely on the prosecution, the side that is making the criminal claim against the defendant. The defense bears no burden of proof at all. And it doesn't matter when the prosecution made its accusation.

Theism is the defense position, atheism is the prosecution making the accusation against theism.

No, you have that backwards. Theism is the positive claim because, as I said, it is a claim that extends ontology. Atheism is just the null hypothesis. It is neither claim nor accusation, it's simply the default position.

Logged

[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]: Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

The supernatural realm is other than the natural realm. If I knew where it existed, then I would gladly share that information with you. Because I don't know where it exists does not mean that it doesn't exist.

It does mean that it might as well not exist.

Like the back side of the moon does not exist, because I've never seen that either, so based on your logic, there might as well not be a back side of the moon. Or the inside of the sun. I've never seen that either, so it must not exist either, right?

Quote

]And it means that making claims about what's in it is profoundly dishonest.

So making claims about the moon having a backside and the sun having an inside is profoundly dishonest?

I've never seen Russia first-hand. Would I be dishonest to make claims like "it is cold this time of year in Russia" or "people in Russia speak Russian"? If I follow your logic, then it would be so. I couldn't read something about it and then tell you about it, because that would be dishonest?

Like the back side of the moon does not exist, because I've never seen that either, so based on your logic, there might as well not be a back side of the moon. Or the inside of the sun. I've never seen that either, so it must not exist either, right?

The motion of the moon would be different if it was a half-sphere or something like that. The sun would rapidly degenerate if there was nothing inside it. These are very easily detectable effects. Or are you saying that the inside of the sun, and the back-side of the moon, are supernatural?

I've never seen Russia first-hand. Would I be dishonest to make claims like "it is cold this time of year in Russia" or "people in Russia speak Russian"? If I follow your logic, then it would be so. I couldn't read something about it and then tell you about it, because that would be dishonest?

I am not sure whether you are lying about my logic, or unable to understand it. It's one or the other. I tend to give peoples' intelligence the benefit of the doubt in these cases.

For the record, is it correct to conclude you are defining religion as " a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"? If not, what definition of religion do you use?

I only copied that definition, I didn't author it, thus the link to give credit to where credit is due.

My thoughts on religion:

-Religion is man's attempt to either reach God, or to be God.-Religion is the set of beliefs that someone holds that rule his thoughts, motivations, and actions towards others.-While "Christianity" as most people see it could be classified as a "religion," following Jesus as His disciple is just a new way of walking through life.

If I am understanding you correctly, the definition of religion that you didn't author (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) applies to atheists.

Correct.

Quote

For Non-Christian theists the following definitions of religion apply:

-Religion is man's attempt to either reach God, or to be God.-Religion is the set of beliefs that someone holds that rule his thoughts, motivations, and actions towards others.

This would encompass all atheists and all theists, including most of what is perceived to be Christianity.

Quote

For Christian Theists the following definition of religion applies:-While "Christianity" as most people see it could be classified as a "religion," following Jesus as His disciple is just a new way of walking through life.

Following Jesus with heart, soul, mind, and strength is more than a set of beliefs. It is a way of life that is ruled by the love, mercy, and grace of God, not a list of do's and don'ts.

Quote

Correct? If the above understanding of definitions of religion applied to atheists, non-Christian theists and Christian theists is incorrect, what is the correct understanding?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

These are my thoughts.

I am confused by the definition of religion (a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe) applying to atheists. I have no doubt the atheists on this website will correct me if I am wrong but I don't think an atheist is concerned with the purpose of the universe. Cause and nature of the universe will appeal to an atheist mindset but a purpose of the universe is much more subjective and therefore doesn't fit as a measurable demonstrable criteria for an atheist. But, it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong.

Regarding salvation, there is only one way to salvation and that is through Jesus the Christ, correct? Is it correct to conclude that accepting Jesus the Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior must be declared by each individual who professes to be a Christian? And is it correct to conclude there are no exceptions to being a Christian other than accepting and declaring Jesus the Christ as one's personal Lord and Savior?

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Christianity is true and all other religions are false because only Christianity provides:

1) a reasonable answer to how the universe and us got here. I know you all are familiar with the cosmological argument, so for time and space's sake I won't repeat.

What does 'reasonable' have to do with it. Atomic theory isn't reasonable, in the sense that you using. Nor is the theory of gravity. Rather, each is a conclusion reached via study, research, experimentation and other scientific undertakings. Reasonable isn't one of criteria. Reasonable isn't even very useful in life. A reasonable person would never get married, because no marriage will ever be as smooth as silk, so it will inevitably hurt. Yet people do it.

'Reasonable' is not a criteria worth considering.

Just to be clear, the end results of scientific endeavors are reasonable. But as a byproduct, not as the only reason to look for the answers. You're doing it wrong.

Quote

2) a reasonable answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Again, you all are familiar with that argument as well, so no need to repeat it.

More reasonable. Again, irrelevant. To expect everything in life to be nice and neat and 'reasonable' is to more or less guarantee that you're going to settle for lies, because, in this case, that is the only way to wend your way to 'reasonable'.

There are more obvious, more logical, more consistent, more rational, more easily explainable reasons for right and wrong existing in this world. All are grounded in reality rather than fantasy, so from your point of view, they aren't much fun. And they lack the pazzazz of 'sinning', which is the frosting on the cake for you guys. But we evolved being have no particular reason to be perfect. There has been no evolutionary pressure to be good all the time. So we're not. Don't go slathering your lack of thought all over the issue.

Quote

3) a way of salvation that does not rely on one's own effort to obtain it, thus one can not only receive the salvation but have assurance of it because it is not based on their own works. if you all are as smart as you claim to be, then you know what Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and others offer in the way of salvation and assurance of it, if anything.

Irrelevant. Religious salvation doesn't exist, and to believe that it does distorts your reality beyond measure. You're going through life using Play-Skol toys instead of knowledge and common sense. You are not dealing with reality, but rather a Barbie shaped view of reality that is just as distorted as the doll. Religion is a toy, that you keep trying to hit everyone else over the head with.

Quote

4) a God Who is the First Cause in the salvation process. God chooses to give salvation to someone and they are saved. This is related to 3 above. It is not someone seeking God and finding Him, it is God choosing to make the lost one found.

We're not lost, you just don't' see us playing in your daycare and, being spoiled brats and all, you want us to be there with you rather than out living an adult life. With no god, there is no path to your imagined salvation. Only you choose to want others to the useless religious tasks that you think are important, because again, no god is involved in the process. It is entirely human. And the religious tend to give 'human' a bad name by playing all of your games.

Quote

In addition, there is the personal experience that I and many others have had.

That is all anyone has ever had. Personal experiences. I don't know of any other kind for a person to have. That you have misinterpreted various events in your life as god-related is not very useful. Not useful at all, in fact.

Righteousness doesn't look good on anyone. Not at the level you are trying to reach. Please stop. You're embarrassing us humans.

Logged

Anyone can beat around the bush. But unless you have permission from the bush, you probably shouldn't.

Honestly we think you are wrong. Quite wrong. However we, or I at least, hold that factuality trumps previously held notions and desires. I don't LIKE being proven wrong, however the temporary embarrassment is trivial to actually being wrong.

My perception of what Hatter said is that his mind is already made up - no matter what I say, before I even say it, he has already passed judgment on it and it is wrong. That's different from saying "We would like to hear you out on this topic and then we'll decide if we think you are wrong or not."

To me it is clear that Hatter's statement says exactly what your second sentence above says. Can you please explain what you believe is meant by the sentences below? "Show your working", as the expression goes.

When talking about free-will, are you meaning free-will as it applies to Christian theism or free-will in general?

There are several other threads on the subject of “free-will v. determinism”. The argument seems to have been resolved[1].

The term “free-will” is an inaccurate term. Whether the universe was created or ‘appeared’ does not matter. The universe is governed either (i) By random chance (the capricious or unfathomable will of a deity)(ii) By degrees of random chance and order(iii) By order

(i) If it is by random chance, then there is no free will as everything is random and all events are independent of each other. This would include the thought process (basically an electro-chemical reaction) and hence the decision making process: if this is random, there is no free-will, merely random actions. It is highly unlikely that the universe operates purely random chance given that we are here experiencing much the same things in much the same ways and there are proven laws that explain its form and the actions within it.

(ii) If it is by degrees of random chance and order, then as random chance is not a free choice and as order is fixed by definition, then there is no free will.

(iii)If it is by order alone, then, on a human scale, we would have certainty and would allow us to discover the mechanical laws that have governed, govern, and will continue to govern our existence and that of everything around us. This is the state we find ourselves in.[2]

However, if we attempt to say, “Well, if all is governed by laws, then our personal future must be foreseeable.” we fail. Although we can state with high accuracy short term mechanical events, non-trivial animal behaviour is infinitely more complex. Although it is driven by those very atoms and particles, it is also influenced by (i) nurture, environment, and experience and (ii) internal organ structure on a sub-atomic level. It is so complex that, by its very nature and size, like the photons in the footnote, all the data required to predict any non-trivial human decision at all is impossible to collate and process.

The conclusion is that although there can be no free-will, there is an overwhelming illusion of free-will.

Where does this leave us on a moral scale? Why should we punish people? Well, punishment is a way of correcting a system by applying known laws to the "experience" aspect of presently determined behaviour in the hopes of influencing future behaviour… sometimes it works, but we would prefer reform/a cure to punishment.

This is not quite accurate. For example the decay of the individual nuclei of radio-active elements is considered to be random. It may not be random, but when dealing with a few billion subatomic particles travelling at the speed of light, it is not possible to obtain precise information. However, it turns out that mathematics allows us to calculate reactions with a high degree of repeatable precision.

The classic example is to stand in a lighted room at dusk and look out the window. You will see the street and your reflection. Your reflection is caused by photons from the room reflecting back at you and the visibility of the street by photons from the sun passing through the glass. Some photons from the room will penetrate the glass and some will reflect. There is no possible way of knowing which individual photons will do what but we can describe the light levels in the street and of our reflection to a remarkable degree of accuracy. So our uncertainty becomes certain.

Logged

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

When talking about free-will, are you meaning free-will as it applies to Christian theism or free-will in general?

There are several other threads on the subject of “free-will v. determinism”. The argument seems to have been resolved[1].

The term “free-will” is an inaccurate term. Whether the universe was created or ‘appeared’ does not matter. The universe is governed either (i) By random chance (the capricious or unfathomable will of a deity)(ii) By degrees of random chance and order(iii) By order

(i) If it is by random chance, then there is no free will as everything is random and all events are independent of each other. This would include the thought process (basically an electro-chemical reaction) and hence the decision making process: if this is random, there is no free-will, merely random actions. It is highly unlikely that the universe operates purely random chance given that we are here experiencing much the same things in much the same ways and there are proven laws that explain its form and the actions within it.

(ii) If it is by degrees of random chance and order, then as random chance is not a free choice and as order is fixed by definition, then there is no free will.

(iii)If it is by order alone, then, on a human scale, we would have certainty and would allow us to discover the mechanical laws that have governed, govern, and will continue to govern our existence and that of everything around us. This is the state we find ourselves in.[2]

However, if we attempt to say, “Well, if all is governed by laws, then our personal future must be foreseeable.” we fail. Although we can state with high accuracy short term mechanical events, non-trivial animal behaviour is infinitely more complex. Although it is driven by those very atoms and particles, it is also influenced by (i) nurture, environment, and experience and (ii) internal organ structure on a sub-atomic level. It is so complex that, by its very nature and size, like the photons in the footnote, all the data required to predict any non-trivial human decision at all is impossible to collate and process.

The conclusion is that although there can be no free-will, there is an overwhelming illusion of free-will.

Where does this leave us on a moral scale? Why should we punish people? Well, punishment is a way of correcting a system by applying known laws to the "experience" aspect of presently determined behaviour in the hopes of influencing future behaviour… sometimes it works, but we would prefer reform/a cure to punishment.

This is not quite accurate. For example the decay of the individual nuclei of radio-active elements is considered to be random. It may not be random, but when dealing with a few billion subatomic particles travelling at the speed of light, it is not possible to obtain precise information. However, it turns out that mathematics allows us to calculate reactions with a high degree of repeatable precision.

The classic example is to stand in a lighted room at dusk and look out the window. You will see the street and your reflection. Your reflection is caused by photons from the room reflecting back at you and the visibility of the street by photons from the sun passing through the glass. Some photons from the room will penetrate the glass and some will reflect. There is no possible way of knowing which individual photons will do what but we can describe the light levels in the street and of our reflection to a remarkable degree of accuracy. So our uncertainty becomes certain.

I appreciate your responses and the footnotes.

Based on the information provided about free-will, I am in the illusion of free-will camp. If it is an illusion, so be it.

Sincerely,

OldChurchGuy

Logged

Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a great battle - Philo of Alexandria

Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion - Dalai Lama

Do you admit that you twist people's words to make them into what you want them to say?

Damn my hypocrisy meter just redlined and blew a fuse

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

No. That is not what Hatter is asking, and unfortunately, I think you are aware of that. Hatter's question, basically put (and he will correct me if I am wrong) is "what is it about other religions that makes them wrong, but makes yours right?" - What differentiates the others?

Thanks

GB Mod

The Twitter response is:

Christianity is true and all other religions are false because only Christianity provides:

1) a reasonable answer to how the universe and us got here. I know you all are familiar with the cosmological argument, so for time and space's sake I won't repeat.2) a reasonable answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Again, you all are familiar with that argument as well, so no need to repeat it.3) a way of salvation that does not rely on one's own effort to obtain it, thus one can not only receive the salvation but have assurance of it because it is not based on their own works. if you all are as smart as you claim to be, then you know what Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and others offer in the way of salvation and assurance of it, if anything.4) a God Who is the First Cause in the salvation process. God chooses to give salvation to someone and they are saved. This is related to 3 above. It is not someone seeking God and finding Him, it is God choosing to make the lost one found.

In addition, there is the personal experience that I and many others have had.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

No. That is not what Hatter is asking, and unfortunately, I think you are aware of that. Hatter's question, basically put (and he will correct me if I am wrong) is "what is it about other religions that makes them wrong, but makes yours right?" - What differentiates the others?

Thanks

GB Mod

The Twitter response is:

Christianity is true and all other religions are false because only Christianity provides:

1) a reasonable answer to how the universe and us got here. I know you all are familiar with the cosmological argument, so for time and space's sake I won't repeat.2) a reasonable answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Again, you all are familiar with that argument as well, so no need to repeat it.3) a way of salvation that does not rely on one's own effort to obtain it, thus one can not only receive the salvation but have assurance of it because it is not based on their own works. if you all are as smart as you claim to be, then you know what Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and others offer in the way of salvation and assurance of it, if anything.4) a God Who is the First Cause in the salvation process. God chooses to give salvation to someone and they are saved. This is related to 3 above. It is not someone seeking God and finding Him, it is God choosing to make the lost one found.

In addition, there is the personal experience that I and many others have had.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

All of the reasons are self-referential anyway.

Posit: A god exists - and is, by our definition, insane. 1 and 2 are answered, and 3 and 4 become irrelevant - they were only necessary in the contex of Christianity anyway. What has salvation to do with anything unless you a priori accept Christianity?

No. That is not what Hatter is asking, and unfortunately, I think you are aware of that. Hatter's question, basically put (and he will correct me if I am wrong) is "what is it about other religions that makes them wrong, but makes yours right?" - What differentiates the others?

Thanks

GB Mod

The Twitter response is:

Christianity is true and all other religions are false because only Christianity provides:

1) a reasonable answer to how the universe and us got here. I know you all are familiar with the cosmological argument, so for time and space's sake I won't repeat.2) a reasonable answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Again, you all are familiar with that argument as well, so no need to repeat it.3) a way of salvation that does not rely on one's own effort to obtain it, thus one can not only receive the salvation but have assurance of it because it is not based on their own works. if you all are as smart as you claim to be, then you know what Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and others offer in the way of salvation and assurance of it, if anything.4) a God Who is the First Cause in the salvation process. God chooses to give salvation to someone and they are saved. This is related to 3 above. It is not someone seeking God and finding Him, it is God choosing to make the lost one found.

In addition, there is the personal experience that I and many others have had.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

Hatter,

are you familiar with what the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim concepts of salvation and eternal life are? Christianity differs greatly from other religions with respect to these concepts. If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

No. That is not what Hatter is asking, and unfortunately, I think you are aware of that. Hatter's question, basically put (and he will correct me if I am wrong) is "what is it about other religions that makes them wrong, but makes yours right?" - What differentiates the others?

Thanks

GB Mod

The Twitter response is:

Christianity is true and all other religions are false because only Christianity provides:

1) a reasonable answer to how the universe and us got here. I know you all are familiar with the cosmological argument, so for time and space's sake I won't repeat.2) a reasonable answer to the problem of pain and suffering. Again, you all are familiar with that argument as well, so no need to repeat it.3) a way of salvation that does not rely on one's own effort to obtain it, thus one can not only receive the salvation but have assurance of it because it is not based on their own works. if you all are as smart as you claim to be, then you know what Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, and others offer in the way of salvation and assurance of it, if anything.4) a God Who is the First Cause in the salvation process. God chooses to give salvation to someone and they are saved. This is related to 3 above. It is not someone seeking God and finding Him, it is God choosing to make the lost one found.

In addition, there is the personal experience that I and many others have had.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

All of the reasons are self-referential anyway.

Posit: A god exists - and is, by our definition, insane. 1 and 2 are answered, and 3 and 4 become irrelevant - they were only necessary in the contex of Christianity anyway. What has salvation to do with anything unless you a priori accept Christianity?

Anfaulglir,

are you familiar with what the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim concepts of salvation and eternal life are? Christianity differs greatly from other religions with respect to these concepts. If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

Hatter,

are you familiar with what the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim concepts of salvation and eternal life are? Christianity differs greatly from other religions with respect to these concepts. If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

So you dodge, and when I call you on it you call me a meanie pants and use that as a reason for dodging a second time.

I am saying I've noticed no difference between the claim between each religion as being actually factual as opposed to other religions. Any piece of evidence that would advance one claim over the other would undermine my assertion as false. So far you, and every other theist in the world I have spoken with other than deists, have provided none.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

I notice if you replace Christianity with Hinduism, Islam,Buddhism...etc(any replace it with Christianity in number 3) The exact same 'reasoning' could be used by the adherent of any religion? So GF really didn't address the question at all.

Hatter,

are you familiar with what the Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim concepts of salvation and eternal life are? Christianity differs greatly from other religions with respect to these concepts. If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

So you dodge, and when I call you on it you call me a meanie pants and use that as a reason for dodging a second time.

I am saying I've noticed no difference between the claim between each religion as being actually factual as opposed to other religions. Any piece of evidence that would advance one claim over the other would undermine my assertion as false. So far you, and every other theist in the world I have spoken with other than deists, have provided none.

No, I wasn't dodging, your post was not clear. You did clear it up this time, but in doing so you show that you are dodging. I asked if you are familiar with the concepts of salvation and eternal life within the contexts of the Hindu, Buddhist, and Muslim religions as opposed to the Christian religion.

Are you - yes or no? If so, then let's have a meaningful discussion about the differences, which is not dodging but going deeper into the conversation of why Christianity is true and all other religions are false. If you can't see that this is a sincere attempt to have the discussion that you say you want to have, you are either not really reading my responses, you are reading my responses and aren't able to comprehend them, or you read my responses and comprehend them but you are being intellectually dishonest. I'm trying to show you why I believe Christianity is true and other religions are false by having a discussion of the different views of salvation and eternal life. Is that really that hard for you to see?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Buddhism addresses each point as clear as Christianity it is the one true religion

as does Muslim, and Viking Cosmology as well.

However, I am weak on my knowledge of Hinduism; but IIRC there's not a lot about afterlife and salvation.

« Last Edit: December 29, 2013, 10:14:24 PM by Hatter23 »

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Buddhism addresses each point as clear as Christianity it is the one true religion

Would you then please do a side-by-side comparison of each point in Buddhism and in Christianity and I will respond to the Christian points that you list?

it would just be opinion,but because of your attitude you would be reincarnated as some kind of rodent in Buddhist terms,your closed mind would seal your fate for the next few lives. This is something a Christian would refuse to believe... Not that I would be elevated any higher than that of a rodent.

The Buddhist views you would actually PAY for your sin instead of sin/ forgive path you see yourself on now it is the Buddhist thing where you actually are accountable for your actions. You love the fact you can sin without payment,unlike Buddhism

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

I'm confused - all I said was that an insane god covered all the points you said Christianity answered. I would be most interested to hear how an insane god does NOT address the first two points.

So far as salvation goes, your third and fourth points are irrelevant, as I said. It only makes sense in a Christian context once you have already accepted Christianity, so it is entirely irrelevant in showing why a particular faith should be accepted over another. I can see you would like salvation, but there is no reason at all it is a necessary part of existence

So, you - like all other xians he's asked - will never, ever answer the question of why a rapist/murderer gets free will by divine decree but the victim does not.

I apologize if that was not clear. Both parties have free will. The rapist murder has more power than the victim. In result in this case the murderer's will wins over the victim's will.

Your posts seem to assert that GOD highly values free-will to the point that it prevents him from intervening to prevent tragedies, etc. But, according to the Bible that "reveals" god, he is a rampant free will violator. He hardens Pharoah's heart, he put a lying spirit in the mouths of prophets, he caused Mary to get pregnant and told her after the fact, he intervened with Saul the way to Damascus. Hell, he even interferes with animal's free will; remember Balaam's donkey in Numbers 22, the "great fish" that swallowed Jonah, and the bears that mauled the kids that picked on Elisha from 2 Kings 2.

If I thought it would do any good, I'd try to explain, but I can tell that the only thing you are interested in is making ugly remarks. I answered the question and instead of this fostering additional good discussion, it only serves to give you an opportunity to prove how mean-spirited you are.

I'm confused - all I said was that an insane god covered all the points you said Christianity answered. I would be most interested to hear how an insane god does NOT address the first two points.

So far as salvation goes, your third and fourth points are irrelevant, as I said. It only makes sense in a Christian context once you have already accepted Christianity, so it is entirely irrelevant in showing why a particular faith should be accepted over another. I can see you would like salvation, but there is no reason at all it is a necessary part of existence

and its all a side show, of going down a rabbit hole of obfuscation that to the objective observer, there is nothing to separate all religions from each other as far as evidence goes.

Logged

An Omnipowerful God needed to sacrifice himself to himself (but only for a long weekend) in order to avert his own wrath against his own creations who he made in a manner knowing that they weren't going to live up to his standards.

Buddhism addresses each point as clear as Christianity it is the one true religion

Would you then please do a side-by-side comparison of each point in Buddhism and in Christianity and I will respond to the Christian points that you list?

Quote

it would just be opinion,but because of your attitude you would be reincarnated as some kind of rodent in Buddhist terms,your closed mind would seal your fate for the next few lives. This is something a Christian would refuse to believe... Not that I would be elevated any higher than that of a rodent.

So what sealed your fate for the next few lives, if you admit that you would not "be elevated any higher than that of a rodent"?

Quote

The Buddhist views you would actually PAY for your sin instead of sin/ forgive path you see yourself on now it is the Buddhist thing where you actually are accountable for your actions. You love the fact you can sin without payment,unlike Buddhism

Now we are where we can have a meaningful discussion. I am assuming from what you've said so far that you do believe people sin. So now we can talk about the concept of paying the penalty for sin, if you are so inclined. Is this a discussion that you would care to participate in?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

Sin being a term you would understand.... Not the label universally Christians through history have changed the definition of what sin is. Universally doing harm to others is not labelled Sin. A Christian defines it this way,but over the centuries have revised and refined what sin is.

A sin in the 10th century is redefined and absolved in the next century,up and until something is less wrong it was labelled by Christians as sin. Taboo and sin are they the same. Up to the mid 20th century a women had no voice but her husbands in Christianity,now she is free to speak..... Taboo or sin? Slave ownership till mid 18th century,common practice,taboo or sin? Christians just roll with the centuries,what is sin in one century is ok in the next

Like my sig. Says there's no right or wrong just popular opinion,As a sin becomes the norm it is dropped from the dogma.

Logged

There's no right there's no wrong,there's just popular opinion (Brad Pitt as Jeffery Goines in 12 monkeys)

Sin being a term you would understand.... Not the label universally Christians through history have changed the definition of what sin is. Universally doing harm to others is not labelled Sin. A Christian defines it this way,but over the centuries have revised and refined what sin is.

A sin in the 10th century is redefined and absolved in the next century,up and until something is less wrong it was labelled by Christians as sin. Taboo and sin are they the same. Up to the mid 20th century a women had no voice but her husbands in Christianity,now she is free to speak..... Taboo or sin? Slave ownership till mid 18th century,common practice,taboo or sin? Christians just roll with the centuries,what is sin in one century is ok in the next

Like my sig. Says there's no right or wrong just popular opinion,As a sin becomes the norm it is dropped from the dogma.

I just posted my definition of sin another thread, but I'll give it here as well: Sin is anything that you think, say, or do that does not please God. So when I speak of sin, it is within this context.

Do you want to continue the discussion of payment of sin?

Logged

A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent. - John Calvin

I just posted my definition of sin another thread, but I'll give it here as well: Sin is anything that you think, say, or do that does not please God. So when I speak of sin, it is within this context.

Do you want to continue the discussion of payment of sin?

So, is all sin black and white? Is there a 'gray area' of sin?

Logged

Give a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.